America may be facing a constitutional crisis. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., has made a startling declaration: President Obamas birth certificate is fraudulent. If true  and I stress if  then this scandal dwarfs Watergate. In fact, it would be the greatest political scandal in U.S. history.

Recently, Sheriff Arpaio held a news conference. He said that his team of independent investigators  composed of former law enforcement officials and reporters  have for months meticulously examined the computer-generated birth certificate that Mr. Obama revealed to the public in April 2011. Their stunning conclusion: The document is a forgery. His chief investigator, Mike Zullo, says that the document is full of errors and omissions.

snip

Sheriff Arpaios findings threaten to plunge America into an unprecedented crisis. For if  and again, I emphasize if  he is correct, then Mr. Obama has perpetrated the most elaborate hoax in U.S. history. A fraudulent birth certificate would mean that Mr. Obama is ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief. His presidency would therefore be legally and constitutionally illegitimate.

The consequences would shake the country to its very foundations. It would mean that he should be immediately removed from office  impeached. Moreover, every law and executive order passed under his administration  Obamacare, the economic stimulus, the Dodd-Frank financial reform, the government takeover of General Motors and Chrysler, the granting of amnesty to nearly one million illegal immigrants, the National Defense Reauthorization Act, the drone assassination list  would be null and void. The logic is inexorable: Should the presidents legal authority be deemed invalid, then everything resulting from it is also baseless. The Obama presidency would be overturned. Mr. Obama himself would be facing criminal charges  and possible jail time  for committing fraud.

Kuhner claims that every law and executive order signed by Obama would be null and void.

That's not correct; Obama would not be the first governmnet official found to have held an office for which he in fact was not eligible, and under the de facto officer doctrine actions taken by him would not be void.

It will be necessary for Congress and a new president to actually repeal laws signed by Obama such as Obamacare.

Also, the Constitution vests exclusive authority in the Congress to impeach, convict and remove a president.

Even if the evidence is established in a court proceeding that the birth certificate was forged, the House would have to vote to impeach and the Senate would have to vote to convict him.

Furthermore, if Obama loses the election, as was the case with Clinton's crimes when he left office, we will hear the refrain "can't we just move on" from both Democrats and Republicans.

And if Obama wins the election with these birth certificate allegations hovering over him, the politicians and the mainstream media will claim that the voters have spoken and do not care about the forged birth certificate and therefore there should be no impeachment proceeding.

We need to both defeat Obama in the election and then we need to press our elected representatives to hold him accountable for his crimes in order to uphold the principle that the rule of law in America applies to all, ESPECIALLY those holding high office.

It would be ONLY ONE of the many scandals, all ignored by the MSM, that would dwarf Watergate. Watergate after all, was a cover up of a third rate information search robbery. The same occurs HUNDREDS of times each election now by hackers, or at least one could see that being the case.

Fast & Furious ALONE involves the DEATH/MURDER of hundreds of human beings, including two U. S. law enforcement officials. One in the U.S. and one in Mexico. The cover up is FAR LESS important than the crime involved.

Yet, we have heard NOTHING from the media about the program, or WHY or WHO would ever be approve such a hair brained idea in the first place. Even after Obama endorsed the cover up by claiming Executive Privilege.

6
posted on 07/20/2012 12:20:32 AM PDT
by Jim from C-Town
(The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)

I don’t understand why you would say that Obama’s laws, etc. would not be void. If he wasn’t legitimate, then game over, his signature on EVERYTHING would be null and void. If we went with your theory that Congress would have to repeal laws, etc. we would have to assume that Congress would actually do that. I don’t think that you are correct because what would also assume that they would be honest enough to do that.. Why would anyone else be deterred from doing this again except make sure that they have enough Congressmen and Senators to NOT repeal their laws.

It doesn’t make sense. It would be like my writing checks from your bank account and forging your name. I could write checks to friends & family and then it would just be on the honor system that they would return the money? No, it would be found that the checks were not legitimate and the checks would be found to be null and void.

Also, we can’t impeach someone who was never legitimate in the first place. He would be removed from office as well as Joe Biden. Boehner would be put in as President (thank God Nancy Pelosi isn’t Speaker anymore!!)

I’m not a lawyer, but I have been following this story for several years and I have never heard anyone say those things before.....

That's not correct; Obama would not be the first governmnet official found to have held an office for which he in fact was not eligible, and under the de facto officer doctrine actions taken by him would not be void.

De facto officer doctrine can only be cited by ignoring the Constitution's own requirements placed on the office; i.e. to invoke it is deprivation of rights under color of law. (The rights being deprived are those of every citizen to a government which follows its binding Constitution.)

9
posted on 07/20/2012 12:37:05 AM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

It’s just what the law is, as developed over centuries going back to English common law.

Under this legal doctrine, even though it is later discovered that a government official who holds color of official title to his office by virtue of a known election or appointment failed to meet a prerequisite of holding office, such as an eligibility requirement, nevertheless actions taken by him within the scope and by the apparent authority of that office will be considered valid and binding.

There is an argument to be made under the language in the cases that once the citizenry is on notice of the defect in the office-holder, that they are not entitled to rely on official acts and from that point on the acts should be considered void.

However, because the MSM has ignored or ridiculed this at least as of now I would not say that the citizenry at large is as aware of this, as say, the TomKat divorce, so I don’t think we are yet in a position to apply that aspect of the case law.

“...dwarf Watergate.” ?????
_____________________________________________________________
Bulls**t. We can’t even enforce the Law against Atty. Gen. Eric Holder who is in Contempt of Congress. We can’t even get him out of office. Fast & Furious would have dwarfed Watergate if Congress and the Senate had any ba**s.

11
posted on 07/20/2012 12:42:55 AM PDT
by pistolpackinpapa
(Why is it that you never see any Obama bumper stickers on cars going to work in the mornings?)

Yes but Obama and any other government official who deprives someone of a civil right by virtue of an official action is subject to the penalties under the statute 18 USC § 242 you cited and also the remedies under the analogous provisions of 42 USC § 1983 WHETHER OR NOT he is ineligible.

“Constitutional Crises” is putting it mildly. This case will determine if we do in fact have any constitution left.

‘bam, Eric, and Valjar have figured out that the principal “the law does not enforce itself.” They can rule by fiat until the legal apparatus forces them to stop. You can do a lot of stuff in the year or so it takes to file the legal paperwork.

They also know if we catch up with them, they’ll go down for a long time.

Check out Ulsterman’s new post; it gives you a pretty good idea of where they’re trying to take us. Puts it in a whole new perspective.

Under this legal doctrine, even though it is later discovered that a government official who holds color of official title to his office by virtue of a known election or appointment failed to meet a prerequisite of holding office, such as an eligibility requirement, nevertheless actions taken by him within the scope and by the apparent authority of that office will be considered valid and binding.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Clean Hands Doctrine would also be in play, would it not? The De Facto Officer Doctrine exists to protect those who were innocent of the deception from unjust harm that would have befall them if the officer's actions were voided, but the Clean Hands Doctrine would imply that those who were in any way a party to the deception would not be entitled to such protection.

No court would hold that the suits by Orly, Berg, etc. were sufficient to put the citizenry as a whole on notice that they should not rely on Obama’s official actions, especially when every one of these cases to date has been decided in favor of Obama (mostly because the cowardly courts refuse to hear the merits of the cases).

The claim by Sheriff Joe is one thing and one thing only: That the posted BC is a fraud, and I for one consider that assertion as proven. But that contention, even if true and accepted as a true fact; that the BC is a fraud; doesn’t necessarily mean 0bama is not a natural born citizen in our overly parsed world.

Nothing means nothin’. That’s our whole problem. We can think to ourselves, “gee, why would there be a fake BC if there wasn’t something hinky going on”, but our thinking that or even a pile of other people thinking that does not prove anything. It doesn’t (in most cases) even justify investigating things further. I learned this the hard way recently, and it is why I say “the law does not apply itself”.

“The law does not apply itself.” This means that the enforcement of any law absolutely depends upon the existence of and motivation of he who would prosecute you (if it is a criminal case) or sue you (if it is a civil case).

Maybe this seems obvious, even banal. But if there is nobody there to prosecute a crime or sue based upon a tort, or who can afford to sue in a civil case, the law isn’t there, it’s moot, it has no effect. It’s like it was a “No Smoking” sign in a locked room. Nobody sees it, nobody tries to enforce it.

His chief investigator says it is full of errors and omissions. My husband’s official death certificate was full of errors and omissions. Among other things it said he was born in 1929 and died in 2005 (correct) and was 45 years old. Obviously, the new math. It also said he died in a facility, while in fact he had died at home with home hospice visiting daily at the end. The home death box had an X which had been erased. I called medicare and told them they should check to see if someone tried to claim hospital/hospice care billing instead of home visit billing.

The clean hands doctrine is a principle derived from equity jurisprudence and you are certainly correct that if someone who was in on the deception tried to benefit from it a court would have the power to prevent that.

For example, let’s say the chairman of Solyndra was in on the birth certificate scam and knew that Obama was ineligible, it may be that any financial benefits to him from Obama’s official actions could be rescinded.

I hated Nixon...I went door to door campaigning for whatshisname......I hitched a ride with someone who was a Nixon campaigner, and I actually stole a bunch of Nixon stickers.....ashamed of course now, but that was the extent of my radicalism....

so having said all that....WATERGATE WAS NOTHING.....in reality, it was a farce...Nixon just got caught trying to help his low life friends...

he what?...had TWO FBI files and Clinton had 700???

no...Watergate was a supped up farce that the media had fun with....like Rush said, the media smelled blood and have never looked back...

Are you telling me that if Obama or any other POTUSA were involved in a felony crime and convicted of such a crime he could not be taken to jail before an impeachment process was underway. I Don’t need a lesson on the power of politics or position as I’ve lived through many years of crooked government officials. My query is as to fundamental law.

Under this legal doctrine, even though it is later discovered that a government official who holds color of official title to his office by virtue of a known election or appointment failed to meet a prerequisite of holding office, such as an eligibility requirement, nevertheless actions taken by him within the scope and by the apparent authority of that office will be considered valid and binding.

That would have to ignore the fact that many of those actions taken unilaterally by the Executive Branch per his orders were beyond the limits of Constitutional power. Those edicts, appointments, etc. could well be void because there is no way to make the case that they were done with the approval of the Legislative Branch, something which could be done with legislation passed first by the Congress.

31
posted on 07/20/2012 1:08:00 AM PDT
by Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)

Are you telling me that if Obama or any other POTUSA were involved in a felony crime and convicted of such a crime he could not be taken to jail before an impeachment process was underway. I Dont need a lesson on the power of politics or position as Ive lived through many years of crooked government officials. My query is as to fundamental law.

Obama could not be prosecuted for the felony crime in the courts in the first place.

The most they could do would be to name him an unindicted co-conspirator and go ahead and convict the other people who participated in the felony.

It would be up to the House to indict him (that's what impeachment is) and the Senate to convict and remove him.

Once the Senate has removed him from office, then we can go back to the court proceedings and formally indict him and convict him before a judge and jury for that felony.

That would have to ignore the fact that many of those actions taken unilaterally by the Executive Branch per his orders were beyond the limits of Constitutional power. Those edicts, appointments, etc. could well be void because there is no way to make the case that they were done with the approval of the Legislative Branch, something which could be done with legislation passed first by the Congress.

You're right that a number of actions taken by Obama are ultra vires and should be considered invalid by a court.

But this is true whether or not he is ineligible for office.

For example, Obama does not have the authority to exempt an entire category of people from the immigration laws, as he has done with his decree as to non-enforcement of the law against illegal aliens who fall within a certain category.

This action is by nature a legislative act and beyond the power of the president and should be declared by an honest court to be invalid.

Agree. Watergate was more of a witch hunt by the libs to get Nixon than anything else. It pales in comparison to what will eventually be revealed about Obama. Fast and Furious is certainly worse than Watergate in its scope ...and people died.

The Republican establishment isnt going to do anything even if the investigation turns up an 8mm film of Baracks momma delivering him a dirt floor in a hut in Kenya. Nor is the Roberts court going to declare him ineligible no matter what the investigation turns up.

Hell, the Republican establishment will not even investigate Hum-a Weiners ties to a known terrorist group. What makes anyone think these people give a flying crap where Obama was born? Obama isnt their enemy. Conservatives are!

It pales in comparison to what will eventually be revealed about Obama.

It will be revealed. That's for sure.

I think if the reason for the hiding the birth certificate was because of who his father is it it may take a little more time to be revealed than if it because of the place of birth.

Obama's a celebrity overseas. Celebrity mean $$$. Eventually (if he was not born in USA) a poor village will be wanting to brag. Especially once Obama's been re-elected. They know he cannot run again. At some point during his second term or soon afterwards it will be known. The village knows it will be a tourist attraction. That means money and lots of it. And all of this will happen without investigators. If they get greedy and impatient they just may spill the beans while he's still in his second term. What happens from that point I have no idea.

We will certainly look like fools to the world. It WILL not be pretty.

If Obama visits Arizona again, Sheriff Joe should just go arrest him. Since Obama is a fraud, theres no Constitutional reason why he cannot be arrested.

Some may consider it an open question as to whether the Constitution would allow the president to be arrested and tried and convicted in a state court for the state (not federal) crimes of forgery and electoral fraud.

In Clinton v Jones, the president was sued in a civil case by a private party (Paula Jones) under both federal and state law and the Supreme Court held that the private party was not required to wait until the president was out of office before proceeding with the lawsuit.

Nevertheless, in the case of crimes, I would expect the courts to rule that "high crimes and misdemeanors" encompasses both federal and state crimes and that the president must be impeached and removed by the House and Senate before he may be tried and convicted of a serious crime in a state court.

....... BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA ..... the only way that would happened would be if the media actually paid attention .... and cared about this!!!! The media cared about Watergate .... thay don't give a rat's arse about anything that would tarnish a socialist insurgent Presidents reputation .... I mean what interest would there be in that? ..... well other than doing the actual responsibility of the press!! ..... But like I say ..... Why would the press be interested in that?

Well, if the Constitution is meaningless so is the pursuit of the truth.

There may be some who may want the truth for political purposes but I’m not one of them I don’t even think it should be an issue in the election except in one race and that would be the race John Boehner faces.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.